Oh Man: More of the Conservative Press (WND)making Baseless Accusations: "Anatomy of a Lie"

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I'm sure as hell not ignorant.

Technically we are all ignorant at the moment. The US government has essentially said it has no verifiable evidence that Iraq has attempted to illegaly purchase uranium from Africa. Any reference to such purchases has been disavowed by our leadership . . . not to mention references deleted from speeches before they were uttered.

Blair and Straw are the only people on the planet claiming to have intelligence supporting the Iraq/African uranium story. Curiously, they don't want to share. I wonder why?

I'm not ignorant of the facts we have available but I can't say that of everyone here.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Not to speak for the Clinton apologeticists but I don't think Clinton ever gave the American public the impression we were going to liberate Iraq by invasion. Clinton will go down in history as the Cruise missile President. Why risk American lives when we can just drop a bomb on somebody for pissing us off? I'm not saying it solves anything but it definitely registers as displeasure with the target of opportunity.

There is a notable exception in Iraq. The lack of a WMD find in Iraq makes at least one theory quite plausible. US/UK spies within/around UN inspectors located many targets in Iraq before 1998. The bombing destroyed much of Saddam's capability so instead of cutting into his "Blonde on a Camel" oil painting budget he decided to forget WMD b/c the Americans kept blowing his stuff up. The US invasion was based on a lack of intelligence not the presence of intelligence. We invaded to see what he really had while assuming he must have something b/c he's a lying POS. Whatever WMD remains in Iraq clearly isn't in any condition to be used against anyone any time soon . . . therefore the WMD threat from Iraq appears to be imagination not reality.

To date our most significant find is buried centrifuge parts older than all of my clothing. This fact is telling b/c it supports the notion that Saddam's nuke program was shuttered not necessarily dead. Yet both cases are a far cry from administration claims. Anybody remember the nuclear weapon in less than a year claim?

Then we have the mobile labs . . . they've kind of dropped off the radar . . . I wonder why?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Not to speak for the Clinton apologeticists but I don't think Clinton ever gave the American public the impression we were going to liberate Iraq by invasion. Clinton will go down in history as the Cruise missile President. Why risk American lives when we can just drop a bomb on somebody for pissing us off? I'm not saying it solves anything but it definitely registers as displeasure with the target of opportunity.

There is a notable exception in Iraq. The lack of a WMD find in Iraq makes at least one theory quite plausible. US/UK spies within/around UN inspectors located many targets in Iraq before 1998. The bombing destroyed much of Saddam's capability so instead of cutting into his "Blonde on a Camel" oil painting budget he decided to forget WMD b/c the Americans kept blowing his stuff up. The US invasion was based on a lack of intelligence not the presence of intelligence. We invaded to see what he really had while assuming he must have something b/c he's a lying POS. Whatever WMD remains in Iraq clearly isn't in any condition to be used against anyone any time soon . . . therefore the WMD threat from Iraq appears to be imagination not reality.

To date our most significant find is buried centrifuge parts older than all of my clothing. This fact is telling b/c it supports the notion that Saddam's nuke program was shuttered not necessarily dead. Yet both cases are a far cry from administration claims. Anybody remember the nuclear weapon in less than a year claim?

Then we have the mobile labs . . . they've kind of dropped off the radar . . . I wonder why?

Back to the "we destroyed them" and the "well he didn't take over a country" excuses again huh?

Fine - you win

We destroyed them all and no one should question Clintons reasons or motives because he is the almighty Bubba and he has a legacy to rewrite.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I'm not ignorant of the facts we have available but I can't say that of everyone here.

I don't know if you are ignorant or not but you are certainly selective.

Back to the "we destroyed them" and the "well he didn't take over a country" excuses again huh?

Fine - you win We destroyed them all and no one should question Clintons reasons or motives because he is the almighty Bubba and he has a legacy to rewrite.

I'm not defending Clinton's actions. I don't recall any overwelming body of evidence from his administration. My point is we don't know if we destroyed them all but considering we have taken over a country and haven't found any (yet) is pretty good evidence that 1) there probably isn't much there, 2) whatever is there is pretty well hidden which by extension typically means it would be difficult to readily deploy, and 3) claims of a massive WMD program and imminent threat to the region and US have no basis in physical evidence.

We should always question the motives and thinking our elected leaders regardless of party affiliation or their actions in office.

 

[Czar]

We should always question the motives and thinking our elected leaders regardless of party affiliation or their actions in office.

exactly, everything should be questioned or else there isnt a democracy

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow CAD, you'll go to nearly any lengths to defend Bush. Maybe you can somehow bring up Clinton again to distract us all

But he doesn't have a double standard. Nosireee.

I'm sure as hell not ignorant. Oh and that double standard...well lets just say that you best understand my argument before you try to judge it.

CkG

CkG - Wow, where did you see someone call you 'ignorant?' You know that didn't actually happen right?

Okay, gotta drink more coffee to keep up with the rapid-fire responses...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Czar

We should always question the motives and thinking our elected leaders regardless of party affiliation or their actions in office.

exactly, everything should be questioned or else there isnt a democracy

Oh wow - whodda thunk it. More people buying into the "duty" to criticize argument.

Whatever makes you feel "patriotic" I guess.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow CAD, you'll go to nearly any lengths to defend Bush. Maybe you can somehow bring up Clinton again to distract us all

But he doesn't have a double standard. Nosireee.

I'm sure as hell not ignorant. Oh and that double standard...well lets just say that you best understand my argument before you try to judge it.

CkG

CkG - Wow, where did you see someone call you 'ignorant?' You know that didn't actually happen right?

Okay, gotta drink more coffee to keep up with the rapid-fire responses...

Psst - I was implying that other's were being ignorant I'm sorry - I get accused of things when i use smileys to show intent or emotion so I tried one without - guess a guy isn't safe no matter how he posts.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYDM - you really don't have a clue do you. Please understand the use of Clinton in my other arguement. It was to prove that the people who are criticizing Bush's reasons for attacking aren't consistent since they didn't question Clinton's use of the same reasons. I care what slate says, why? The reason the Admin chose to "nitpick" is becuase his speech was being nitpicked by you nitwits. You should know by now that this Admin doesn't give out info without being directly questioned or forced to give it out
CkG

CkG, The Clinton thing was a joke, simply a joke (see those crazy smilies can be deceptive). I know you don't care what Slate says, since it doesn't agree with your world-view, but if you understood what they were saying, perhaps you would also know why there's such a firestorm over the statement, or mis-statement. Presidential speeches, especially the SotU speech is carefully crafted, every word put in or taken out for a reason. Why shouldn't we listen and seek to understand exactly what's being said in the same granular fashion?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYDM - you really don't have a clue do you. Please understand the use of Clinton in my other arguement. It was to prove that the people who are criticizing Bush's reasons for attacking aren't consistent since they didn't question Clinton's use of the same reasons. I care what slate says, why? The reason the Admin chose to "nitpick" is becuase his speech was being nitpicked by you nitwits. You should know by now that this Admin doesn't give out info without being directly questioned or forced to give it out
CkG

CkG, The Clinton thing was a joke, simply a joke (see those crazy smilies can be deceptive). I know you don't care what Slate says, since it doesn't agree with your world-view, but if you understood what they were saying, perhaps you would also know why there's such a firestorm over the statement, or mis-statement. Presidential speeches, especially the SotU speech is carefully crafted, every word put in or taken out for a reason. Why shouldn't we listen and seek to understand exactly what's being said in the same granular fashion?

I do understand what they are saying, and what they are saying is a politically motivated attempt to Discredit Bush. They are taking his words and attributing meaning that he may not have mean and assuming that he "carefully plotted" his every word.

Yes care is taken in speeches to get the wording correct, but that doesn't mean it is a "plot to decieve" which they are taking it to the extreme of.

I'm seeing thier attacks for what they really are, others eat it up since it fits into their agenda to Bash Bush.

Whatever though. You guys win.

Bush LIED!!! HE IS A DISASTER! OMG WE HAVE TO OVER THROW THIS REGIME!!!

Happy?

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: NesuD

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from World Net Daily

They should be charged with treason for this qoute:

"But that explanation begs another, more disturbing question about overall motives: Why did this administration want to invade and occupy Iraq so badly that it was willing to scare Congress and the American people with ginned-up intelligence in order to sell its war scheme?

It's incumbent upon Congress to find out. It can start by calling Tenet and Rice to testify ? under oath and in open hearings ? before the intelligence committees about what really happened in the days leading up to the State of the Uranium. "

For cryin out loud. Congress had already voted to support an invasion of Iraq months before the SOTU speech was ever made. So what happened here? The Admin scared Congress into doing something it had already voted in favor of a couple months before? It's a nonissue it was only ever mentioned that one single time. Give it a rest already.

That is the most ridiculous twisted logic I've ever heard. Stop focusing only on the lie Bush told in the SOTU speech. Focus on the lie he told REPEATEDLY about WMD as well.

No nuclear material from Africa and no WMD - the latter of which Bush continually lied about to get Congress' approval for war.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I do understand what they are saying, and what they are saying is a politically motivated attempt to Discredit Bush. They are taking his words and attributing meaning that he may not have mean and assuming that he "carefully plotted" his every word.

Yes care is taken in speeches to get the wording correct, but that doesn't mean it is a "plot to decieve" which they are taking it to the extreme of.

I'm seeing thier attacks for what they really are, others eat it up since it fits into their agenda to Bash Bush.

Whatever though. You guys win.

Bush LIED!!! HE IS A DISASTER! OMG WE HAVE TO OVER THROW THIS REGIME!!!

Happy?

CkG

Fine, I was wondering when this thread would die.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I'm sure as hell not ignorant. Oh and that double standard...well lets just say that you best understand my argument before you try to judge it.

CkG

I think we all understand your argument just fine. We also recognize that it is baloney, a self-deluding rationalization to avoid acknowledging the truth: Bush knowingly made a statement intended to deceive us. That is a lie, plain and simple.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush is a disaster for sure.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush is a disaster for sure.

DISASTER? Hell, damn near killed her.

 

[CaptnKirk]

How long does the Stepford Administration Mouthpieces practice their lines
before they have the phrasing down pat so they can go forth to the weekend talk shows.

I am an emotionless droid, I am here to tell you the benefits of ShrubCo.
He never said what is is, he has no recollection of those nouns and vowels.
He doesn't know the meaning of fear. Hell there are a lot of other words that
he dosen't know the meaning of either, Truth, Integrity, Dog, Cat, Rhinocerous . . .

 

[LunarRay]

One potato ... two potato... three potato... four..

A vote for Bush is a vote for war...


edit cuz... something went boink..

 

[Moonbeam]

DISASTER? Shame on you.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
DISASTER? Shame on you.

Nah.... not disaster.... just enforced freedom.... "You'll be free and like it... or else.."